213374U

Well, I guess not just anything, but something as simple, easy and natural as violence, yes. The human being is a predator, you know. There can be no predator without dead prey. Can you? Well, that's news. Anyway, you can't get used to getting killed, nor can you improve at dying with practice. While many living beings are great at causing death, you'll be hard pressed to find one that excels at dying. Killing is the byproduct and ultimate end of violence. Maybe killing in and of itself isn't in our nature, but violence certainly is. Be it protection, feeding, or other reasons. When it comes to the instinct of lashing out physically, the intent is to kill or injure, so as to disable the target. "Killing is evil" is a human notion, and as such is a part of our rational, conscious self that is disconnected from (and sometimes overriden by) our base instincts.

Shooting an unaware walking target from one or two metres behind requires no skill or reflexes whatsoever. It does limit the player's choices because it makes a combat skill useless in a lot of combat situations (that don't involve sneaking). Well, then I can only congratulate you on your uber leet skills. You are the first person I see that claims they had no problems whatsoever bypassing the limitations imposed by the skill system. You should consider a career in Counterstrike. People earn loads of money that way. Again, there's nothing but your word to support this. I tried it, and it was completely inefficient. So, whatever. Maybe you'd like it better if I stuffed your mouth with something else? Hmm? It was often impossible because often you couldn't sneak up on one enemy without others seeing you. Thus the subtle difference between "often" and "always".

That's not reflexes. That's tactics and/or wits. It's not going around the system because the skill is still useless. Guns are supposed to be useful at a distance, but without points, they aren't really. Therefore, the skill is effectively gimped. And as Alan pointed out, anyone can walk up to you and shoot you in the back. It doesn't take a sharpshooter. On the other hand, I was never able to hit jack at long distances. You could shoot moving targets that way too? How much had you invested in the small guns skill? Again, the player is supposed to take advantage of the poor tactics of the enemy early in the game to supplement JC's lack of skills by that point. You are not supposed to be the unstoppable killing machine you are by the endgame, yet. Yes, they couldn't see you if you were behind them. So...?

You can't get used to being crushed by a flying pig, nor can you excel at it with practice. There is no instinct that may suddenly drive you to put yourself in the trajectory of said pig, either.

I don't see the problem with this, but perhaps I didn't understand what you were trying to say. Do you think it's unreasonable that you can hit a human head-sized target with a pistol at a distance of two metres? Anyone could do that, provided they knew how to mount the gun and fire. That also assumes you could sneak up on your target, which was often impossible. And just rushing them was not a very good idea either, especially if they packed shotguns or heavy weapons. All in all, I don't think DX had balance or skill usage issues (save for the lightsaber maybe).

You lose.

Hello? Eddo?

Lol. Can you see your ears? At any rate, you are entitled to your opinion.

You suck as usual.

They did it for the oil.

Super Street Fighter II Turbo. It's been years since I'd had my ass handed to me like this.

I was supposed to be a paratrooper combat engineer... but I quit. Too boring. Also, it's more of a light machine gun.

A .50 BMG handgun?

So how about military surplus? Could you get your hands on one of those sweet M60s now that they're going to be retired?

Heh. I remember reading somewhere about assault rifles being stripped of some parts in order to make them semi auto only so they complied with some regulations for civilian use and stuff. So, you could own (and operate) an M2 Browning no problem?

Isn't that kind of hardware like, you know... illegal?

You win. Heh, that's such a stereotype. Now, if you could please offer some evidence to back your claims about the "majority" of prostitutes, maybe you wouldn't sound so hollow. Face it pal, women like sex as much as you and me do, if not more. Sucks that it's them who get to choose in the end, huh? Granted, many of them are exploited and abused by organized crime, and some are forced into it in order to feed their children or whatever. But there are some that choose it willingly too. What, are they all messed up in the head? That kind of condescending crap always makes me smirk. And, even if they all have endured those supposed traumatic childhood experiences, what does it have to do with it? Are you (and I don't mean you specifically) implying that their judgement is impaired in some way? Maybe they are clinically unfit to lead the life they choose? Because, as a matter of fact, I'm inclined to believe the opposite. What with all that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" stuff. Maybe those "scarred" girls just aren't as skittish and puritanical as the rest of society. Maybe living a harder life changes the way one sees many things. I'm not sure, because I haven't asked every last of them if they want out. I'm all for legal and regulated prostitution. 'Cause life just ain't no fun without booze and hookers.

Winnar of teh Internets.

Because I am.

He had nobody to replace the locals if he slaughtered them, anyway. He didn't establish jack. It was his very good friends who, in their greed, turned on each other hoping to keep Alex's legacy alive and whole... under their rule. Ptolemy just happened to get Egypt. And his vision, the work of his life, came down crashing as soon as he expired. Not much of an empire-builder, if you ask me. And yeah, Pidesco's right.

And in "putting things in words you think folks can relate to", you are putting things in a different scale, which incidentally turns the offense into a personal attack. Which is not. That's your fallacy right there. Speculation. I'm sure you can find more consistent stuff than that to base your arguments on. I don't know the details, but neither do you. Yes, those very extreme (and unheard of if I'm not mistaken) consequences of high-profile hacking would probably warrant longer sentences. That is not the case, so the point is moot. My personal opinion, since you asked for it, is that it's nuts that the man can (I know, theoretically) spend more than half a century in prison because he hacked n computers, and at the same time, the system would apply less severe penalties to a brawler convicted of manslaughter. That's pointless, as adequacy in penal terms is decided arbitrarily when elaborating the penal code, in accordance to the perceived seriousness of the offense. But otherwise, it's pretty random. You say 54 is fine and I can not find an argument to prove formally that you are wrong. The opposite is true as well, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You are taking things out of context, as no individuals have actually seen their belongings or personal data messed with in any way. There is no such sense of personal distress or violation for anyone. It was just organizational damage. As much as you might dislike crime in any shape or size, appealing to emotion still makes for a fallacious argument. Sure, the man needs to spend some time behind bars so he can think of something to do other than masturbation and hacking. But 54 years is still too much. Even theoretically. And no, I don't care if it's the US judicial system he's facing. My blood boils all the same when I see stuff like this happen where I live (and believe me, over here it's even worse) or elsewhere. Hm. That reminds me of something...

$40 for that? Lol. JK is one of the SW games that received best critics and one of the most popular FPS of its time, so it's understandable they put it in the package. EAW, on the other hand, seemed rather mediocre to me.